Often it is possible to identify snakes by their shed skins alone (you can do so too, here). I have had some pretty serious exercise of this skill this week. In the past three days, I have found three fairly fresh snake sheds on islands in the Matanzas River. I am here doing evolutionary biology research on brown anole lizards, which you can read more about here and here, but it’s impossible (for me, at least) not to be on the lookout for snakes and snake-related objects, such as shed skins. Snakes don’t typically hang around the site where they shed very long (don’t worry, I looked), but the sheds themselves have many characteristics that aid in identifying the species they came from.

Two of the three sheds were found right outside the entrance
to a gopher tortoise burrow. These burrows are built by the tortoises for
shelter, and many other animals, especially snakes, use them as well. They can
be as long as 40 feet and as deep at 10 feet. Although many
snakes spend a significant amount of time underground, they usually come up to
the surface to shed their skin All snakes must do this once in a while,
typically every 3 weeks to 2 months, depending on their growth rate and need to
heal injuries or slough off parasites.

Entrance to a gopher tortoise burrow

Although snakes shed their skin in a single piece, the shed
is very fragile and can be tattered or torn easily by wind or other animals.
Most often, though, a shed is either torn apart by the snake as it sheds, or tears
itself apart as a result of drying out (it is wet when the snake sheds it off,
as a result of lymphatic fluid excreted by the snake’s integument to aid in the
shedding process). Sheds are easiest to identify when they are freshly shed,
ideally before they have dried out entirely, which only takes an hour or so in
the hot Florida sun. Luckily for me, the two sheds I found outside the tortoise
burrow had probably been shed only about an hour or so before I found them, so
they were fairly intact. Still, one was torn in half, not a big deal from an
identification perspective, and the other had suffered some tattering of the
head, which is more serious but not fatal.

The first thing to notice is the overall size of the shed,
as this can rule out many species if the shed is large, which these were. It’s
important to remember that you could be dealing with a juvenile snake, so small
overall size does not necessarily mean that one is dealing with a small-bodied
species of snake. The shed skin is necessarily larger, both in length and girth,
than the body of the snake that shed it, since the shed has to stretch in order
to be pulled off the snake. Still, the relative proportions are often fairly
similar, and both length and width can be clues to snake body size and shape.

The sheds I collected measured 72” and 60” in length, plus
or minus a few inches to account for imperfect measurement of the
difficult-to-stretch sheds. The ventral scales at the halfway point of the body
were about 1.5” and 1.25” wide, respectively, so I could tell that these were
both fairly heavy-bodied snakes, even for their great length. This narrowed
down the pool of possible species considerably, but there were still several
candidates, including indigo snakes, either of the two large rattlesnakes
native to Florida, rat snakes, corn snakes, and pine snakes. Coachwhips also attain
these lengths, but are relatively slender.

Other easy clues narrowed the species pool further. The dorsal
scales (those covering the top and sides of the body) were mostly smooth,
although the middorsal scales of the larger shed showed some slight keels.
Keels are when there is a ridge running lengthwise down the center of the
scales, similar to the keel of a boat. The texture of the scales (keeled or
smooth) is preserved in the shed skin, and can be an important clue to the
identity of the shedder. Rattlesnakes, watersnakes, and pine snakes all have
strongly keeled scales that feel rough to the touch – I knew that these species
were not responsible for the shed when I saw that the scales were smooth in
texture. Furthermore, counting the number of rows of dorsal scales, typically
halfway between the head and the tail, can give further insight into the
identity of the snake. These sheds both had 27 scale rows at midbody.

The larger shed

Patterns are often preserved in shed skins, but without
their colors. High-contrast patterns are especially evident, but typically are only
clearly visible for a short while after the skin has been shed. These can be
important clues, but they are difficult to interpret. Good lighting is often required
to make out the pattern of a snake shed. These snakes had slightly different
patterns. The larger shed had two dark stripes running longitudinally down the
entire body, near the center of the back. The smaller had a similar pattern,
but the space between the stripes contained alternating dark and light blotches
with dark edges, especially near the head. Neither shed had any evident pattern
on the ventral scales.

The head of the larger shed

Between the scale row count and the pattern, I had a pretty
good idea what genus these snakes were in. To identify to species, however, is
often trickier, because it usually involves examining the scales of the head in
detail. This requires 1) having the head to look at and 2) a degree of finesse,
because the head is often the most delicate part of a shed. Additionally, the
head is often scrunched up inside of the anterior part of the body, as a result
of the behavior of the snake during shedding. Extricating the head is not
unlike performing a dissection. I have found that it is helpful to photograph
the head at every stage of dissection, because you might destroy certain
features in pursuit of access to others, or just from even the lightest handling.
Also, details are sometimes evident in macro photographs that are not obvious
on the shed itself.

The smaller shed

The scales of the head of colubrid snakes each have special
names that are determined by their arrangement with respect to the eyes, mouth,
nostrils, and to one another. The easiest scales to count are the upper (supra)
labials. These are the scales along the upper lip. One or two of the
supralabials are typically in contact with the bottom of the eye, which can be
an important characteristic. The frontmost scale on the upper lip is called the
rostral and is located front and center on the nose of the snake, but there is
not much variation among species in the characteristics of the rostral, so it’s
not very informative One of these sheds had 8 supralabials on each side of the
head, the 4th and 5th of which were in contact with the
eye; the other was too destroyed to count, especially toward the rostral (where
many snakes begin rubbing in order to slough off the shed). Other similarities
included two pairs of prefrontal scales (the scales above the rostral and
between the supralabials, on the bridge of the nose), a divided nasal scale
(the scale behind the rostral that contains the nostril), one loreal (the scale
between the nasal and the preoculars), one preocular (the scale behind the
loreal and in front of the eye), two postoculars (the scales behind the eye),
and a 2+3+3 temporal formula (the numbers of scales in each of the three rows
posterior to the postoculars). On the basis of all these similarities, I
concluded that these were probably the same species of snake, which I think is Pantherophis [Elaphe] obsoletus
quadrivittatus, the Yellow Ratsnake.

A much smaller yellow ratsnake that I caught this week

The size and pattern discrepancies could be solved in two
ways. The smaller of the two snakes could have been a corn snake (Pantherophis guttatus), which is what
the pattern reminded me more of. However, rat snakes are blotched with a
similar pattern as (but different colors than) a corn snake when they are
young. Although this pattern fades with age, faint traces of it may be evident
even in very large snakes, and these traces may be more evident in shed skins
than on the actual snake. It wouldn’t be unusual to find rat and corn snakes
cohabitating in the same tortoise burrow, especially because there were only
two burrows on this island that I could find. The other explanation is that
both sheds came from rat snakes, one male and the other female. Although there
are no consistent pattern differences between male and female rat snakes, the
slight keels on the middorsal scales of the larger shed are typical of male rat
snakes, whereas the completely smooth scales of the smaller shed are consistent
with female rat snakes. Furthermore, the larger size of the male is typical of
all snakes that have male combat, including rat snakes. Finally, and most
convincingly, the tail of the larger specimen made up 17% of the total length,
whereas the tail of the smaller specimen, while slightly more battered and
harder to measure, only made up about 11% of the total length. This is
consistent with sexual dimorphism in tail length observed in nearly every
species of snake.

Because both snakes were in the same place at the same time
(judging by the condition and likely age of the sheds) and were different sexes,
I think it’s more likely that they were the same species, yellow rat snakes,
possibly a mating pair. Why they both shed before (or after) mating, I couldn’t
say – perhaps the snake version of an after-sex cigarette?

Whereas blotched and unblotched adult rat snakes are possibilities,
I have never seen or heard of unblotched adult corn snakes, and in any case,
these would have been some big corn snakes, especially the male. They were
pretty big even for rat snakes – the record rat snake length is 72” (keep in
mind that the measured lengths of the sheds are several inches longer than the
lengths of the snakes, because the sheds are stretched out).

The third snake shed I found a few days earlier on the same
island, but away from the tortoise burrow, in a sandy area. This was a trickier
one, because I only found part of the shed – this time both the head and tail
were missing. These are the two most informative sections of a shed, the head
for reasons I described above, and the tail because of the ability to tell the
sex (given also the total length) and because the subcaudal (under tail) scales
can give you information about the family of snakes to which the owner of the
shed belongs. All I had to work with were the dorsal and ventral scales, and
the limited pattern I could see. I could also tell that this snake was robust,
not slender, which eliminated a few species, such as the Racer and Coachwhip,
and fairly large, which eliminated several more small-bodied species.

Ventral pattern of rainbow snake shed

The dorsal pattern of this shed was faint, but I thought I
could make out a few stripes similar to those of the rat snake, but thinner. I
looked closely at the ventral pattern, which was obscured in most places but
quite clear in a few spots. The gestalt of the pattern reminded me of something
I had seen before, but I couldn’t quite place it at first. I looked more closely
at the rest of the shed. The dorsal scales were completely smooth, with no hint
of keels. They were in 19 rows, which is an important piece of evidence. I knew
that this was not a pine snake, rattlesnake, cottonmouth, rat snake, or kingsnake,
all of which have keeled scales, a greater number of dorsal scale rows, or
both. Only two large snakes in Florida have 19 dorsal scale rows – the mud
snake and the rainbow snake. These are secretive, fully aquatic snakes with
specialized diets and cryptic habits; both are rarely seen. You might ask why
the shed of a fully aquatic snake would be found on dry land. The interesting
thing about mud and rainbow snakes is that they lay eggs, unlike most other
species of aquatic snakes. Females of these snakes must come onto land to lay
their eggs, much like female turtles. I have never heard that they come to land
to shed, but apparently this one did.

Ventral pattern of rainbow snake shed

Based on the habitat and the particulars of the ventral
pattern, I think it’s much more likely that this was a rainbow snake (Farancia erytrogramma) than a mud snake.
Because the island I was on is in the estuary, close to the ocean, there are almost
certainly American Eels in the river, which are the primary food of rainbow
snakes. Mud snakes eat giant aquatic salamanders, especially sirens and
amphiumas, which do not inhabit salty water – their most common habitat is isolated
acidic wetlands, such as Carolina Bays. To find either of these species is a
rare treat. To find the shed of one is probably even rarer, although I’m not
sure of that. I was pretty excited about this find, because the rainbow snake
is one of my very favorite snakes.

13 comments:

I really like the title of your post and I certainly agree with you. In US I believe the Florida have the most kinds of the snakes including some of the largest snakes in US. There are more than 40 types of snakes that can be found in Florida and many of these Florida snakes can grow very large.

Thanks for the compliment! Florida has 58 snake species, including non-natives, but in fact the state of Texas has more (83), on account of having both a larger land area and a great diversity of ecoregions. Florida and Teaxs both are home to the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), the largest snake in the US.

I recently moved to Port St. Lucie FL and I have seen a Gopher Tortoise in my yard, (I think he is living under my deck). Last week I found a snake shed inside my lanai between the tracks for hurricane shutters. It measures 30 inches with accordianed skin of 2 inches. Can you help me identify what snake this might be? My property is 1/2 acre but I am in a residential area. Also wondering if the Gopher tortoise might be undermining my house!

Sure, I'll be glad to help! But we probably won't be able to arrive at an answer without more details. At that size, there are a half-dozen species it could be. Can you email me some well-focused photos of the shed, preferably of the head and under-tail regions? (amdurso@gmail.com)

Tortoise burrows are unlikely to cause damage to your foundation - in fact, once he realizes he's digging underneath something like a house or road, he'll probably relocate.

Drymarchon couperi does not occur in Texas. The most western extent of even its historical range is only southeastern Mississippi, and currently only Florida and Georgia support endemic populations (it is thought to have been extirpated from Alabama; however, "One reintroduced population may be thriving in Covington County, Alabama"). Wikipedia includes Louisiana in its range, but everyone knows to take Wiki with a BIG grain of salt when it comes to biological sciences...still; even Wiki doesn't include Texas.

Drymarchon melanurus erebennus, a very similar species, occurs in southern Texas (and Mexico).

A very good article indeed. Having kept snakes for <24 years (since 11/21/1991 [I am 31]) and always a nature boy - and herping LOTS - it wasn't until the past few yeas that I have studied wild sheds in an effort to decipher the species. I already knew what to look for as described in Your article, but it is still cool to see this topic published for new herpers. :) Coming from the northeast, We have a smaller selection to decipher, haha (born and raised in MA, living in PA past two years).

Timothy

P.S. I originally, before "signing in" I guess (with Google account), had "Replied" to Your comment (April 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM) in response to Michael's comment (April 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM); however, when I tried to publish it (or whatever the button was), the page refreshed into a new format ('Google bar' across the top shoiwng my email address, "Dashboard" and "Sign Out" options; text not spanning full length of internet window but instead has borders now; Blog Archive popped up on the right; Translate and Subscribe To options popped up on right [underneath Blog Archive]; et cetera)...and, of course, no visible comment. Hence, this "New" comment. So; sorry if this was published twice, but this version has a lot more to it (delete the old/first one). And is there no way to "Reply" specifically to another's comment?

Timothy, you're right! My mistake. Since I wrote that I've actually seen a Texas Indigo and become more familiar with their taxonomy. Thanks for pointing that out, and for the kind words regarding the blog.

I turned off 'Reply'ing to other comments because several commenters wrote me to say that it wasn't working for them or that their thoughtfully-typed comments had been lost as a result. When I Googled the error, turning off that functionality was the best fix available at the time. I'd like to turn it back on because it makes the dialogue easier to follow, but I'm afraid of shutting people out.

Haha, no worries, Andrew. And You're welcome. :) We're All here to help and learn from each other, even decades-seasoned herpers always have something to learn, and it can be trivial! :P Gotchya on "Replying" to other comments, it's no problem.

Hi Lorie, try following the instructions in the link at the top of the post, or here: http://snakesarelong.blogspot.com/2012/11/identifying-snake-sheds-part-iii.html

If you can't get it, you can email me a picture (again, instructions for what I'll need to be able to see in the photo are in the link above) and your geographic location and I'll see what I can do. Thanks for reading!

I enjoyed reading your posts... I am from wisconsin...and was moving my wood pile and found the sheds of between 8 and 10 smallish snakes all within less than 1 cubic foot area.... is that unusual? Or do snakes find a "special shedding place" and keep using it? Thanks

Hi Gene, cool observation. Snakes love wood piles, and it's possible that these sheds accumulated over time from the habitual use of your wood pile by one or several individuals. Sometimes it can take a while for the sheds to break down, especially if they are protected from physical weathering (e.g., under a piece of wood in your wood pile). We don't know that much about whether snakes use particular shedding places, but it's possible, and I'd say that your observation lends some more evidence to the idea. Any idea what species they were from?

Translate

Subscribe To

Follow by email

About Me

I am a PhD student at Utah State University, where I study the physiology and ecology of lizards and snakes. My research is quite narrow compared to the fascinating field of snake ecology, which I write about here to indulge my broader interests. My work brings me into frequent contact with the need for snake conservation, which requires holistic conservation of ecosystem structure and function, on which human society depends. I believe that we can only accomplish this goal through education, and that is partly why I decided to publish this blog. The title is a quote by David Quammen, one of the best science writers around, and the Mudsnake in the logo is from Duméril, Bibron, & Duméril's nine-volume early 19th century opus, Erpétologie Générale.